"Taylor, Grandpa is lying to you right now. It's a very mean thing to do. I know you would like [insert whatever he is promising here], but he's lying about it. Grandpa, please apologize to Taylor for being mean to her. That wasn't a nice thing to do."

Absolutely this. Call him on his lying using direct, simple language that the child can understand.

I might even add, "Remember all of the other times Grandpa lied to you about things?"

He's digging his own grave (as far as his relationship with his grand-daughter is concerned).

My cousin, Annette's, FIL has a bad habit of provoking Annette's nearly four-year-old daughter, Taylor, into a tantrum, and then expecting Annette, or her husband, Todd, to calm Taylor down. For example, MIL and FIL were visiting for the weekend, and as they were leaving, FIL says, "Hey, Taylor, where's your suitcase? Don't you want to come to stay at Grandma and Grandpa's house for the week?" Taylor runs off to get her suitcase. When she finds out that she can't go to Grandma and Grandpa's house for the week, she pitches a tantrum. (I don't blame her. In the course of five minutes, a trusted adult offers her a trip to her grandparents' house and then yanks it out from under her. I'd cry, too.)

This has happened several times (with different fun things FIL has "taken back") and every time Taylor reacts negatively to having that fun thing taken away, FIL is "shocked" that she's upset. He hands Taylor off to Annette or Todd and says, "Get her to calm down, will you?" MIL has told him to stop it. Todd has told him to stop it, but FIL says he's only kidding, so there's no harm in it.

Last weekend, FIL and MIL were visiting and FIL says, "Hey Taylor, guess what? Grandma and Grandpa are going to Super-Fun Kid Friendly Destination that Taylor Loves next week!" Annette, Todd and MIL all told him to stop, because they knew what was coming next. FIL ignored them and said, "Sure would be fun if Taylor could come." Of course, Taylor says, "Please, please can I go?" And she couldn't, because of various logistics, so Taylor had a meltdown. Where Annette and Todd and MIL normally would have stepped in and diffused the situation, they all walked out of the room and left FIL to deal with a crying, upset toddler.

It took a while for Taylor to calm down. Afterwards, FIL couldn't BELIEVE they'd just walked off and left him like that. He told Annette and Todd that Taylor has to learn not to have tantrums.

So my questions are:

1) Yes, it's important for Taylor to learn not to have a tantrum, but doesn't FIL bear some responsibility for provoking her?

2) Is it rude to walk away and let someone deal with a child's tantrum when that person caused the tantrum?

3) Is there a better way to handle this?*

*I suggested limiting FIL's time with Taylor until he can be trusted to behave like an adult, but Annette and Todd are unwilling to limit MIL's time with Taylor. It's unlikely that MIL would be able to visit without FIL.

My cousin, Annette's, FIL has a bad habit of provoking Annette's nearly four-year-old daughter, Taylor, into a tantrum, and then expecting Annette, or her husband, Todd, to calm Taylor down. For example, MIL and FIL were visiting for the weekend, and as they were leaving, FIL says, "Hey, Taylor, where's your suitcase? Don't you want to come to stay at Grandma and Grandpa's house for the week?" Taylor runs off to get her suitcase. When she finds out that she can't go to Grandma and Grandpa's house for the week, she pitches a tantrum. (I don't blame her. In the course of five minutes, a trusted adult offers her a trip to her grandparents' house and then yanks it out from under her. I'd cry, too.)

This has happened several times (with different fun things FIL has "taken back") and every time Taylor reacts negatively to having that fun thing taken away, FIL is "shocked" that she's upset. He hands Taylor off to Annette or Todd and says, "Get her to calm down, will you?" MIL has told him to stop it. Todd has told him to stop it, but FIL says he's only kidding, so there's no harm in it.

Last weekend, FIL and MIL were visiting and FIL says, "Hey Taylor, guess what? Grandma and Grandpa are going to Super-Fun Kid Friendly Destination that Taylor Loves next week!" Annette, Todd and MIL all told him to stop, because they knew what was coming next. FIL ignored them and said, "Sure would be fun if Taylor could come." Of course, Taylor says, "Please, please can I go?" And she couldn't, because of various logistics, so Taylor had a meltdown. Where Annette and Todd and MIL normally would have stepped in and diffused the situation, they all walked out of the room and left FIL to deal with a crying, upset toddler.

It took a while for Taylor to calm down. Afterwards, FIL couldn't BELIEVE they'd just walked off and left him like that. He told Annette and Todd that Taylor has to learn not to have tantrums.

So my questions are:

1) Yes, it's important for Taylor to learn not to have a tantrum, but doesn't FIL bear some responsibility for provoking her?

2) Is it rude to walk away and let someone deal with a child's tantrum when that person caused the tantrum?

3) Is there a better way to handle this?*

*I suggested limiting FIL's time with Taylor until he can be trusted to behave like an adult, but Annette and Todd are unwilling to limit MIL's time with Taylor. It's unlikely that MIL would be able to visit without FIL.

FIL is a sick, sick sonofa*****.

Keep him away from these children.

I've been kinda waffling, trying to find a bit of advice, or something to say about this (My grandmother did the same. darn. thing.) and yet I think it hits too close to the bone for me to say anything civil.

So I'm just gonna agree with LeveeWoman here. She said it better and more concisely than I could. I hope your little cousin get someone to stand up for her, it sounds like her parents and grandma are at least trying.

My cousin, Annette's, FIL has a bad habit of provoking Annette's nearly four-year-old daughter, Taylor, into a tantrum, and then expecting Annette, or her husband, Todd, to calm Taylor down. For example, MIL and FIL were visiting for the weekend, and as they were leaving, FIL says, "Hey, Taylor, where's your suitcase? Don't you want to come to stay at Grandma and Grandpa's house for the week?" Taylor runs off to get her suitcase. When she finds out that she can't go to Grandma and Grandpa's house for the week, she pitches a tantrum. (I don't blame her. In the course of five minutes, a trusted adult offers her a trip to her grandparents' house and then yanks it out from under her. I'd cry, too.)

This has happened several times (with different fun things FIL has "taken back") and every time Taylor reacts negatively to having that fun thing taken away, FIL is "shocked" that she's upset. He hands Taylor off to Annette or Todd and says, "Get her to calm down, will you?" MIL has told him to stop it. Todd has told him to stop it, but FIL says he's only kidding, so there's no harm in it.

Last weekend, FIL and MIL were visiting and FIL says, "Hey Taylor, guess what? Grandma and Grandpa are going to Super-Fun Kid Friendly Destination that Taylor Loves next week!" Annette, Todd and MIL all told him to stop, because they knew what was coming next. FIL ignored them and said, "Sure would be fun if Taylor could come." Of course, Taylor says, "Please, please can I go?" And she couldn't, because of various logistics, so Taylor had a meltdown. Where Annette and Todd and MIL normally would have stepped in and diffused the situation, they all walked out of the room and left FIL to deal with a crying, upset toddler.

It took a while for Taylor to calm down. Afterwards, FIL couldn't BELIEVE they'd just walked off and left him like that. He told Annette and Todd that Taylor has to learn not to have tantrums.

So my questions are:

1) Yes, it's important for Taylor to learn not to have a tantrum, but doesn't FIL bear some responsibility for provoking her?

2) Is it rude to walk away and let someone deal with a child's tantrum when that person caused the tantrum?

3) Is there a better way to handle this?*

*I suggested limiting FIL's time with Taylor until he can be trusted to behave like an adult, but Annette and Todd are unwilling to limit MIL's time with Taylor. It's unlikely that MIL would be able to visit without FIL.

FIL is a sick, sick sonofa*****.

Keep him away from these children.

I've been kinda waffling, trying to find a bit of advice, or something to say about this (My grandmother did the same. darn. thing.) and yet I think it hits too close to the bone for me to say anything civil.

So I'm just gonna agree with LeveeWoman here. She said it better and more concisely than I could. I hope your little cousin get someone to stand up for her, it sounds like her parents and grandma are at least trying.

We actually discussed something similar in the Passive Aggressive People thread about parents who offer to take their kids to the movies or get their kids all excited to go somewhere and then later, say, "Oh, did you really want to go?" and then act all put out. The extremely sucky difference here is that FIL is never the one to say, "Oh, Grandpa was just kidding, you can't come stay at our house." He leaves it to Annette or Todd to tell Taylor that Grandpa's fun suggestion isn't possible. It's like he winds everybody up and watches them go.

I definitely think everyone should immediately jump in with "grandpa is lying. Don't get excited, remember when he lied about getting to stay with them? And the time he lied about going to *Super Fun Place*? Remember how badly your felt? Don't believe your grandpa's offers."

I think its great FIL had to deal with the tantrum... but in doing so it victimized the child a second time, by making her a pawn in her grandfather's lesson.

This cannot possibly be serious. Taylor is not a coffeemaker that overflowed because this guy put too much water in it and now he's being left to clean up the mess. Taylor is a child, who is being tormented by this man, who she is supposed to be able to love and trust. Sure an adult should have t "suffer the consequences" of his own actions, but I don't believe dealing with a temper tantrum is the same as suffering consequences; at least not in this situation and not the best or most effective way.

Frankly, the more important issue here is protecting Taylor from being abused. If she were my child, he would not be allowed to have any contact with her. Period. As far as the MIL not getting to see her granddaughter, well, it's unfortunate, but Taylor comes first. (And again, I am speaking only for myself here). If Taylor were my child and the MIL and FIL were my parents (or in-laws), I would have a serious talk with MIL and tell her that we love her and want her to have a relationship with Taylor, and would do anything and everything we could to make that happen, but it had to be without FIL. We could spend time together when he had other things to do or other people to spend time with.

Wow, I'd consider this kind of behavior emotional abuse. He is deliberately taunting a child--a child!--and then disavowing his behavior by saying, "you have an upset kid; fix her."

I have no children but if I did and a family member ever did that to my child said family member would no longer be allowed anywhere near my child. That is just all kinds of wrong. And to enable it by telling the child he is lying or teasing or to leave the room is just excusing it (in my opinion). I'd cut him off unless and until he acknowledged how wrong he is and said he'd never do it again.

I'd refuse to be the bad guy. I'd say "We'll I don't know about a week, but a night or two is fine with me. Go get your suitcase!" and "Wow, Super Happy Fun Place! She was supposed to go to the dentist tomorrow but that can be rescheduled!" Make Mean Old Grandpa explain he didn't mean it.

(Unless he'd actually take Taylor, in which case as soon as I saw where it was going I'd interrupt with a sharp "No! Not funny!")

I'd refuse to be the bad guy. I'd say "We'll I don't know about a week, but a night or two is fine with me. Go get your suitcase!" and "Wow, Super Happy Fun Place! She was supposed to go to the dentist tomorrow but that can be rescheduled!" Make Mean Old Grandpa explain he didn't mean it.

(Unless he'd actually take Taylor, in which case as soon as I saw where it was going I'd interrupt with a sharp "No! Not funny!")

Yes, this is the way to have FIL suffer the consequences. Don't let him get all the credit for offering something nice and then just have to hear a tantrum. Make him explain his lie -- not just that she can't do Fun Thing, but why he lied to her about it.

I'd refuse to be the bad guy. I'd say "We'll I don't know about a week, but a night or two is fine with me. Go get your suitcase!" and "Wow, Super Happy Fun Place! She was supposed to go to the dentist tomorrow but that can be rescheduled!" Make Mean Old Grandpa explain he didn't mean it.

(Unless he'd actually take Taylor, in which case as soon as I saw where it was going I'd interrupt with a sharp "No! Not funny!")

Yes, this is the way to have FIL suffer the consequences. Don't let him get all the credit for offering something nice and then just have to hear a tantrum. Make him explain his lie -- not just that she can't do Fun Thing, but why he lied to her about it.

I think this is what the parents were attempting to do when they finally left him to deal with Taylor when she had a tantrum. I don't think it worked and that there is a more direct route to take, but I think that may have been what they were trying to accomplish.

That being said, I think, like many PPs have mentioned, they need to attack the problem straight on with very plain language. "Taylor, remember how Grandpa did this last time, too? When he lied about you being able to stay with Grandpa and Grandma? He's doing it again, don't get your hopes up."

Yeah, pervert seems like quite a stretch! Mean spirited, liar, emotional abuser, the guy seems like a lot of things. But I'm not getting "pervert" out of anything here.

Maybe not "pervert" in the more commonly used sense, but I would say anyone who takes such delight in tormenting a child is clearly perverted in the "Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state." sense.

Logged

What part of v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} don't you understand? It's only rocket science!

"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture